Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

loveofourlord said:

Oh and on the tree vs bush, the tree worked as a very basic understanding of evolution, but we now know that bush is far more correct because the animals on the outer edges are just as evolved as each other. It's not like fish stopped evolving after they moved to land.

Click to expand...

This is the last message to which I will reply with a quoted verse. Consider Mark 7:6-7

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Have a good day.

Religiot said:

The very video you posted contradicts your premises--amazing.

Why not just simply provide evidence? why not just simply provide an actual reference that includes an actual experiment that proves your claim?

You posted a video of someone who simply repeats what you believe (with contradictions against your belief [lol]): don't you know, that simply having others that agree with your belief is not equal to evidence that substantiates your belief as true?

Your responses are growing in absurdity.

Your unscientific conclusions do not even account for earthquakes, nor laminations, etc., ad nauseam.

Just be scientific: provide the proof to your claims.

Stop appealing to what others believe about what you believe--be scientific, for crying out-loud!

Stop appealing to others beliefs as proof for yours, it's absurd: just site an experiment or two, and go from there.

Click to expand...

Alright, so let's work on superposition.




In the world, it must logically be true that layers at a deeper depth must be older than layers at a shallower depth, else the shallower layers would be floating in space.

Just as a chair must be present before I am present to sit on it. Else I could not sit on a chair if it did not pre exist my presence.

And we can do any experiment to test this. Grab a chair. If the chair is present before you, you can sit in that chair. If the chair is not present when you attempt to sit, you will end up falling to the ground.

And in every period of geologic time, and in every period of strata in the earth, we have foot tracks between layers. Meaning that time passed between deposition of layers of strata of every period of earth history , enough time for life to walk to create foot prints.

We can test how foot prints are made as well. Hi walk outside in some mud and examine how the passage of time is necessary for foot tracks to be made.

So, what this means is that older layers were deposited, animals walked on those older layers, younger layers were deposited, animals then walked on those younger layers, and further younger layers were deposited still, with more animals walking on top of those layers. All in a temporal sequence over time.

So by looking at what layers are older and what layers are younger (which ones are on top or bottom of others), we can then observe the fossil succession which can then be used to confirm evolution by comparison of the succession with dna based phylogenetic trees as per the video:


And there really is no logical or scientific alternative. Unless we can somehow explain how a person could sit in a chair before a chair is present for them to sit on.

Chi.C said:

This is the last message to which I will reply with a quoted verse. Consider Mark 7:6-7

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Have a good day.

Click to expand...

So denying gods creation is honouring him as creationist do? Hmmmm I would think accepting gods creation in all forms be the way to make him proud. And again since evolution is reality all these verses are completely meaningless, your just pointing your fingers at yourself.

coffee4u said:

*sigh* I will look at your article later just to keep you happy, but I have heard arguments for the gap theory before.
Surely you already know many people, not just myself disagree with that. I think we could both pull up Bible scholars from both sides for a debate.

Click to expand...

Are you assuming that if something is truth there will not be resistance?

Honestly though I wish you could be happy in your own belief without arguing with mine all the time. Especially on threads that are not about this topic.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind. Young earth creationists try to tell us that the GAP theory was invented to combat the theory of evolution. For it does combat evolution effectively. What the young earthers are not honest about though... Is that the GAP was seen and understood many centuries before the theory of evolution was invented. So, it could not be the reason for this teaching to come about... The online book shows how early it was discovered and understood. If the young earth creationists were more honest in evaluating the facts they would not be allowed to make the claim they make going unquestioned. Its unquestioned because of trusting believers who are not willing to find out for themselves...

I am a patient lady but I have had about enough of this. I do not want to put you on ignore as I had to do with some other rude men on here. It would be a shame to not see your other posts with which I am sure there are things we could actually agree on.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that.

Religiot said:

Genez, while others here may not know you, I do, and every conversation I've ever had with you, about anything, has always been a complete waste of my time; so please, remember, that I'm not interested. --thanks.

Click to expand...

It should not take long to know someone here.

I know you are not interested. Sometimes I say things to you for others to consider concerning what you are saying. They will notice your response and learn even more that way.

genez said:

It should not take long to know someone here.

I know you are not interested. Sometimes I say things to you for others to consider concerning what you are saying. They will notice your response and learn even more that way.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Genez, fair enough.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Alright, so let's work on superposition.

Click to expand...

No. --You need to first work on proving your claims.

KomatiiteBIF said:

In the world, it must logically be true that layers at a deeper depth must be older than layers at a shallower depth, else the shallower layers would be floating in space.

Click to expand...

The very video you provide contradicts that... ...you're not even trying anymore, are you?

KomatiiteBIF said:

Just as a chair must be present before I am present to sit on it. Else I could not sit on a chair if it did not pre exist my presence.

Click to expand...

...wow: do you really not know that earth quakes and volcanic activity alone can churn what's below and place it above?

KomatiiteBIF said:

And we can do any experiment to test this. Grab a chair. If the chair is present before you, you can sit in that chair. If the chair is not present when you attempt to sit, you will end up falling to the ground.

Click to expand...

...amazing: don't you sense shame anymore? --the absurdity of your responses has reached a point of no return...

KomatiiteBIF said:

And in every period of geologic time, and in every period of strata in the earth, we have foot tracks between layers. Meaning that time passed between deposition of layers of strata of every period of earth history , enough time for life to walk to create foot prints.

Click to expand...

you don't know when the foot prints were made, nor when they were covered; so how can you claim to know that they are proof for evolution? Science means knowledge, yet your claims are devoid of it.

KomatiiteBIF said:

We can test how foot prints are made as well. Hi walk outside in some mud and examine how the passage of time is necessary for foot tracks to be made.

Click to expand...

really?

KomatiiteBIF said:

So, what this means is that older layers were deposited, animals walked on those older layers, younger layers were deposited, animals then walked on those younger layers, and further younger layers were deposited still, with more animals walking on top of those layers. All in a temporal sequence over time.

Click to expand...

wow--so you've got the proof of that then, right?

KomatiiteBIF said:

So by looking at what layers are older and what layers are younger (which ones are on top or bottom of others), we can then observe the fossil succession which can then be used to confirm evolution by comparison of the succession with dna based phylogenetic trees as per the video:

Click to expand...

You fail to realize, among many things, that you first have to prove the axiom you are basing your claims on, before you can reference it as axiomatic.

KomatiiteBIF said:

And there really is no logical or scientific alternative. Unless we can somehow explain how a person could sit in a chair before a chair is present for them to sit on.

Click to expand...

Your best experiment, thus far, is sitting in a chair... ...truly, I don't think anyone I know would believe that I've had such a conversation; I would have to have them read it for themselves, cause I hardly believe I'm having it, lol, incredible!

--I told you that this would only end up in one place, absurdity.

I think the thing is that Evolution is just as productive a way of being, as Creation or Attraction are.

It's like saying "which philosophy would God say is the truth?"

What is needed is a consistent way of interpreting "productivity", that reflects positively on the strengths of all the kinds of productivity (Evolution, Creation, Attraction) - no one is going to say choosing a mate is down to "survival of the fittest", in the same way that no one is going to say "God creates purely for 'Creation'" God has other purposes. The difference being that some live and some die, some Create, some Evolve.

Which philosophy is God going to "approve"? He is never going to choose, it just does not serve Him, to have mysterious preferences that don't explain anything.

What gets me, is that "Evolutionists" take half witted understanding of what makes for Attraction and force it down everyone's throats, while people get meaningless "tenure" for paying lip service to intellectual fascism. Biased tenure, is an anathema to science - which ultimately means, that Creationists are going to have to get 'creative' to find ways to demonstrate God's power at work. I want that to happen; I want Creation to get "tenure", maybe not all of it, but at least something: what are the discoveries we need?

There is a tipping point, something cannot simply be Attractive, because it is more and more the same thing - Evolution fails there, if young are born without an awareness of familiar territory, those young will more likely die (even on Evolutionary terms). I'm not saying "that's sweet", I'm saying "God cares too much to leave predators without prey, to eat". There is traction there: God can justify death, if the overall suffering is lower.

That is really where we are, in the hands of an Awesome and All Powerful God hoping we get favour, before predators gloat that even God's best have fallen.

Religiot said:

...wow: do you really not know that earth quakes and volcanic activity alone can churn what's below and place it above?

you don't know when the foot prints were made, nor when they were covered; so how can you claim to know that they are proof for evolution? Science means knowledge, yet your claims are devoid of it.

Click to expand...

Ok good, so we are making progress.

It is true that faulting from earthquakes can push section of strata overtop of one another. Thankfully we can readily see whether or not the earth has been obstructed by faults to determine if this is a factor in our calculation or not. Ways of identifying faults include observing surficial unconformities (faults are readily observable with our eyes), which can further be confirmed by identifying repetition in stratigraphy (strata stays qualitatively the same during faulting so it's no issue observing repetition of strata where earthquakes have caused faulting), and by using well logs to observe subsurface faulting. thrust faults caused by earthquakes also leave behind evidence of faulting (fault gouge, slicken sides, marks left behind by rocks scraping against rock and evidence of rock being scraped and crushed in spaces where two rock bodies are grinding against one another. And actually, things like conglomerates formed as a product of fault gouge, along with propagating faults and cataclastic deformation are further evidence for an old earth, as such features cannot be formed in loose flood deposits. But anyway...

At the end of the day we can just stick with areas that haven't been obstructed by earthquakes for which there are countless.



The same goes with volcanic activity. Thankfully fossils aren't found in magma chambers and volcanic deposits anyway, so these aren't really a factor in understanding the fossil succession.

And we know that fossil foot prints came after the layer or ground/earth in which the foot prints were made (because the bottom layer had to already exist for the animal to walk on), and we know that the layer above the foot tracks had to come after the foot tracks were made because the animal needed time to freely walk. Therefore the layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top, including in areas in which fossil foot tracks are found between the two.

Now, given that we know that rocks deepest in the geologic column were laid down first and that shallow rocks were lade down later in time, and given that rocks altered by earthquakes are readily observable to see if such a think even needs to be considered, we can observe a succession of fossils in these rocks and can determine which fossils came earlier or later in time than other fossils in the succession. Fossils in the deepest layers are oldest, while fossils in the shallowest layers are the youngest. For example, we find dinosaurs in stratigraphically deeper layers than we find groundhogs, therefore dinosaurs predated groundhogs. Example 2, we find trilobites in deeper layers than we find dinosaurs, therefore trilobites predated dinosaurs.

Then once we understand the order of fossils (the fossil succession) we can then put the theory of evolution to the test.

At the end of the day we can just stick with areas that haven't been obstructed by earthquakes for which there are countless. [ATTACH=full said:

297001[/ATTACH]

.

Click to expand...

I was using virginia as my example earlier. To continue on that, here is a cross section of virginia. For the most part, it isn't really complicated by faulting as a product of earthquakes.



The east coast of the US doesn't have complicated volcanism either. So it isn't particularly complicated in these areas determining which layers are on the bottom, which layers are on top, and which layers are older or younger than others.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I was using virginia as my example earlier. To continue on that, here is a cross section of virginia. For the most part, it isn't really complicated by faulting as a product of earthquakes.
View attachment 297003


The east coast of the US doesn't have complicated volcanism either. So it isn't particularly complicated in these areas determining which layers are on the bottom, which layers are on top, and which layers are older or younger than others.

Click to expand...

Here's a nice color coded map that's easy to read:


So as we can see in the bottom image we have a dark green layer at the bottom left, then a light blue above it. We have purples and pinks above that, then we have gray and a couple of green bands, a blue band, then a thick orange band, then dark green, pink, light green, and yellow.

So, as we can see in this cross section of west virginia, there isn't anything particularly complicated going on. In some places on the left of the map, older layers are pushed above younger ones. But for the most part, this doesn't obstruct our ability to see the simple order of layers, both in a subsurface view and at a surface view.

At a surface view moving from west to east we would see a repeating pattern where there is a syncline. So we would see green, blue, orange, pink, light green, yellow, light green, pink, orange, blue, green. Thereby allowing us to confirm the accuracy of our map while still understanding what is below the surface of the ground.

Then once we've established the order of rocks (which ones are deepest and oldest and which are shallowest and youngest), we can then look at the fossils in those rocks to determine the fossil succession, which we can then use to either confirm or reject the theory of evolution.

@Religiot feel free to let me know if you have any difficulty determining what layers are older and what layers are younger in the above maps.

And if it helps, just like with my chair analogy, a chair has to be present before I am present if I sit on a chair, else if I tried sitting before a chair is present, I would fall on the ground. The same goes with reading the above maps. The lower rock layers must be present before the upper rock layers, else the upper layers would be floating in mid air or would fall through empty space. Therefore, the lower layers must be older than the layers above then.

This is the scientific law of superposition:

And once we agree that there is a temporal order of rocks (oldest on the bottom, youngest on the top), then we can look at fossils in those rocks and we can determine what fossils are older and what fossils are younger and we can then establish our fossil succession which can then be used to either affirm or disprove the theory of evolution.

Religiot said:

Your best experiment, thus far, is sitting in a chair... ...truly, I don't think anyone I know would believe that I've had such a conversation; I would have to have them read it for themselves, cause I hardly believe I'm having it, lol, incredible!

.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you understand my chair analogy! Hey, sometimes you just need something nice and simple that everyone can agree on. And yes, please do share.

Just as the chair I am currently sitting on must have pre existed me walking over and sitting on it, lower layers must pre exist upper layers being deposited overtop. Else the upper layers would be deposited in open space and would become the lower layers.

Religiot said:

Your logic is flawed: the claims of some is not equal to the claims of all.

Your judgment about yourself is exceedingly prejudicial: you must prove the tenets of your faith by the scientific method, otherwise, your faith would be a blind one.

Your question is malformed, in that it presupposes that you know what you're talking about, and also, that it presupposes that I would have this knowledge: your faith in the conjectures of men is not scientific, but religious.

Who told you this? and to what extent are they similar? is it just in a superficial appearance? have you yourself made the obeservations? or, are you just espousing someone else's observations? Where is the attempt at falsification? and who attempted the falsification? etc, AD NAUSEAM --the scientific method is not optional.

This was debunked ages ago: Kent Hovind does a good job at exposing that Fraud.

Well, most of those questions were unscientific, thus to desire scientific answers to unscientific questions is unreasonable.

I suggest you focus on proving the science you think you know, by the scientific method, and I also suggest that you focus on believing God instead of men.

Click to expand...

You. still give me no valid debate on why the recurrent laryngeal nerve was designed by God so poorly. Or why the human security nd Chromosome is two ape chromosomes fused together or why humans have 23 chromosomes and apes have 24. And yes I am a biologist and have studied this all and it is testable and falsifiable. Google is your friend. Look it up. I’m not going to spoon feed scientific articles to you. I believe General Revelation. God clearly shows that biological evolution has occurred. Multiple ways.

Explain the absence of the Palmaris Longus muscle in 15percent of humans and it’s useless nature n the rest the rest of humans. I can explain it using the tennants of evolution.

You are just like most every YEC. You attack others without providing one shred of scientific evidence of your views. So let’s hear it. Let’s hear your evidence that the world is 6000 years old and very creature was created in that time frame. Maybe you believe the world is flat? Many of your fellow YEC believe the world is flat too.

present your evidence. We are waiting.

Religiot said:

Your accusation is false, and verifiably so, for not only did you fail to read the full exchange the first time you accused me falsely, but after I exposed your shame you've resorted to repeating the blame instead of retracting: your doubling down is merely the act of digging further into the pit you have fallen into.

Your projections of pride stem from the root of your own condition: please stop, for your own sake.

Click to expand...

eye roll. You "exposed [my] shame". Well, you made me laugh. Not quite as severe as you would have intended. Anyway, you take care.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Ok good, so we are making progress.

Click to expand...

No, we're not, but to more absurdity.

KomatiiteBIF said:

It is true that faulting from earthquakes can push section of strata overtop of one another. Thankfully we can readily see whether or not the earth has been obstructed by faults to determine if this is a factor in our calculation or not. Ways of identifying faults include observing surficial unconformities (faults are readily observable with our eyes), which can further be confirmed by identifying repetition in stratigraphy (strata stays qualitatively the same during faulting so it's no issue observing repetition of strata where earthquakes have caused faulting), and by using well logs to observe subsurface faulting. thrust faults caused by earthquakes also leave behind evidence of faulting (fault gouge, slicken sides, marks left behind by rocks scraping against rock and evidence of rock being scraped and crushed in spaces where two rock bodies are grinding against one another. And actually, things like conglomerates formed as a product of fault gouge, along with propagating faults and cataclastic deformation are further evidence for an old earth, as such features cannot be formed in loose flood deposits. But anyway...

Click to expand...

From assumption to assumption...

--I just proved to you, by your own admissions, that the oldest rocks are not always at the bottom; yet here you are, pretending as if that did not happen.

KomatiiteBIF said:

At the end of the day we can just stick with areas that haven't been obstructed by earthquakes for which there are countless.

Click to expand...

another assumption

KomatiiteBIF said:

The same goes with volcanic activity. Thankfully fossils aren't found in magma chambers and volcanic deposits anyway, so these aren't really a factor in understanding the fossil succession.

Click to expand...

you're plainly wrong about that too, viz: Filed Notes—Life in Old Lava

KomatiiteBIF said:

And we know that fossil foot prints came after the layer or ground/earth in which the foot prints were made (because the bottom layer had to already exist for the animal to walk on), and we know that the layer above the foot tracks had to come after the foot tracks were made because the animal needed time to freely walk. Therefore the layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top, including in areas in which fossil foot tracks are found between the two.

Click to expand...

Without knowing the time between layers, you are just making an assumption: the clay merely needs to solidify enough to where it can be covered again by another layer of mud, e.g., the following years rains, etc. --Your assumption doesn't allow for that, because it is unscientific.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Now, given that we know that rocks deepest in the geologic column were laid down first and that shallow rocks were lade down later in time, and given that rocks altered by earthquakes are readily observable to see if such a think even needs to be considered, we can observe a succession of fossils in these rocks and can determine which fossils came earlier or later in time than other fossils in the succession. Fossils in the deepest layers are oldest, while fossils in the shallowest layers are the youngest. For example, we find dinosaurs in stratigraphically deeper layers than we find groundhogs, therefore dinosaurs predated groundhogs. Example 2, we find trilobites in deeper layers than we find dinosaurs, therefore trilobites predated dinosaurs.

Click to expand...

lol, sorry, man, but I just can't help laughing at your pretense: you maintain that the oldest rocks are lowest, but if they are not found lower than expected, then you will just date them by the fossils found in them, lol, man, that's incredible--you date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks! LOL!

KomatiiteBIF said:

Then once we understand the order of fossils (the fossil succession) we can then put the theory of evolution to the test.

Click to expand...

lol, I'm sorry, but I am truly laughing as I type this, lol: it's been a while since I heard something so absurd regarded as conclusive scientific evidence. --amazing.

KomatiiteBIF said:

I'm glad you understand my chair analogy! Hey, sometimes you just need something nice and simple that everyone can agree on. And yes, please do share.

Just as the chair I am currently sitting on must have pre existed me walking over and sitting on it, lower layers must pre exist upper layers being deposited overtop. Else the upper layers would be deposited in open space and would become the lower layers.

Click to expand...

--amazing.

MittenMaven said:

You. still give me no valid debate on why the recurrent laryngeal nerve was designed by God so poorly. Or why the human security nd Chromosome is two ape chromosomes fused together or why humans have 23 chromosomes and apes have 24. And yes I am a biologist and have studied this all and it is testable and falsifiable. Google is your friend. Look it up. I’m not going to spoon feed scientific articles to you. I believe General Revelation. God clearly shows that biological evolution has occurred. Multiple ways.

Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins is a world renowned biologist: what's your point?

MittenMaven said:

Explain the absence of the Palmaris Longus muscle in 15percent of humans and it’s useless nature n the rest the rest of humans. I can explain it using the tennants of evolution.

Click to expand...

You mean the 'tenets' of evolution; and they are indeed tenets, for it is a religion. --Why did biologists change their minds about the appendix? (If you are able to answer that, then you will also know the answer to the questions you've posited.)

MittenMaven said:

You are just like most every YEC. You attack others without providing one shred of scientific evidence of your views. So let’s hear it. Let’s hear your evidence that the world is 6000 years old and very creature was created in that time frame. Maybe you believe the world is flat? Many of your fellow YEC believe the world is flat too.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to spoon feed you scriptures, nor scientific articles: I'm here to demonstrate the fraud in the faith of evolution.

MittenMaven said:

present your evidence. We are waiting.

Click to expand...

I did, but you do not believe me.

Derek1234 said:

eye roll. You "exposed [my] shame". Well, you made me laugh. Not quite as severe as you would have intended. Anyway, you take care.

Click to expand...

In no way did I intend that to be funny: your scoff is only more proof of your condition.

Religiot said:

No, we're not, but to more absurdity.

From assumption to assumption...

--I just proved to you, by your own admissions, that the oldest rocks are not always at the bottom; yet here you are, pretending as if that did not happen.

another assumption

you're plainly wrong about that too, viz: Filed Notes—Life in Old Lava

Without knowing the time between layers, you are just making an assumption: the clay merely needs to solidify enough to where it can be covered again by another layer of mud, e.g., the following years rains, etc. --Your assumption doesn't allow for that, because it is unscientific.

lol, sorry, man, but I just can't help laughing at your pretense: you maintain that the oldest rocks are lowest, but if they are not found lower than expected, then you will just date them by the fossils found in them, lol, man, that's incredible--you date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks! LOL!

lol, I'm sorry, but I am truly laughing as I type this, lol: it's been a while since I heard something so absurd regarded as conclusive scientific evidence. --amazing.

Click to expand...

Lol we aren't talking about microbial life. All I see above is a lack of response. Knowing the time between deposition of a lower and older layer, and a younger upper layer, is irrelevant to the question of which layer was deposited first and which was deposited second.

So as I said before....

And we know that fossil foot prints came after the layer or ground/earth in which the foot prints were made (because the bottom layer had to already exist for the animal to walk on), and we know that the layer above the foot tracks had to come after the foot tracks were made because the animal needed time to freely walk. Therefore the layers on the bottom are older than layers on the top, including in areas in which fossil foot tracks are found between the two.

Now, given that we know that rocks deepest in the geologic column were laid down first and that shallow rocks were lade down later in time, and given that rocks altered by earthquakes are readily observable to see if such a think even needs to be considered, we can observe a succession of fossils in these rocks and can determine which fossils came earlier or later in time than other fossils in the succession. Fossils in the deepest layers are oldest, while fossils in the shallowest layers are the youngest. For example, we find dinosaurs in stratigraphically deeper layers than we find groundhogs, therefore dinosaurs predated groundhogs. Example 2, we find trilobites in deeper layers than we find dinosaurs, therefore trilobites predated dinosaurs.

Then once we understand the order of fossils (the fossil succession) we can then put the theory of evolution to the test.

Someone seems to be having trouble coming to grips with the simple law of superposition.

KomatiiteBIF said:

Here's a nice color coded map that's easy to read:
View attachment 297005

So as we can see in the bottom image we have a dark green layer at the bottom left, then a light blue above it. We have purples and pinks above that, then we have gray and a couple of green bands, a blue band, then a thick orange band, then dark green, pink, light green, and yellow.

So, as we can see in this cross section of west virginia, there isn't anything particularly complicated going on. In some places on the left of the map, older layers are pushed above younger ones. But for the most part, this doesn't obstruct our ability to see the simple order of layers, both in a subsurface view and at a surface view.

At a surface view moving from west to east we would see a repeating pattern where there is a syncline. So we would see green, blue, orange, pink, light green, yellow, light green, pink, orange, blue, green. Thereby allowing us to confirm the accuracy of our map while still understanding what is below the surface of the ground.

Then once we've established the order of rocks (which ones are deepest and oldest and which are shallowest and youngest), we can then look at the fossils in those rocks to determine the fossil succession, which we can then use to either confirm or reject the theory of evolution.

@Religiot feel free to let me know if you have any difficulty determining what layers are older and what layers are younger in the above maps.

And if it helps, just like with my chair analogy, a chair has to be present before I am present if I sit on a chair, else if I tried sitting before a chair is present, I would fall on the ground. The same goes with reading the above maps. The lower rock layers must be present before the upper rock layers, else the upper layers would be floating in mid air or would fall through empty space. Therefore, the lower layers must be older than the layers above then.

This is the scientific law of superposition:

And once we agree that there is a temporal order of rocks (oldest on the bottom, youngest on the top), then we can look at fossils in those rocks and we can determine what fossils are older and what fossils are younger and we can then establish our fossil succession which can then be used to either affirm or disprove the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I love how there was no effort to respond to this^

@Religiot when you're ready to respond beyond simply saying "amazing" (which I agree with, it is amazing), feel free to let me know.

Did you even look at the geologic maps?

You seem content with suggesting that the occurance of thrust faults somehow confuses us to the extent that we cannot tell what layers are originally above or below others. But that's hardly ever the case as much strata isn't actually obstructed by faulting, such as in the maps I've provided above. Or if it is, it's to such a small scale that it's largely irrelevant.